farahi's nizam ul qur'an

----
there is no harm in the tafsir in itself, as another perspective and falling in the realm of possible/probable interpretations. the issue is farahi's stated objective of proving nazm al-qur'an, so he has to find the links and should be logically plausible.

it falls pitifully short, even according to his own framework; and in my opinion, the product of a disorganised and extremely cluttered mind.

i encourage you to investigate it yourself, and not take my opinion.

do look up other mufassirin as well, such as imam razi, and whether you agree with their argument or not, look at the organised manner in which they present the information. you can read imam razi's tafsir from anywhere, and you can expect that he is following his adopted framework.

----
i have spent years reading, interpreting and adopting international frameworks and standards for business use, preparing documentation, sorting out complicated and undocumented systems. forgive me, if i am therefore, deluded to think that i know a thing or two about structured documentation.

any work, and particularly long works should be well-designed and presented in an order. my beef with farahi is that he states this as the primary purpose of his work - to demonstrate the orderly structure of the qur'an; yet, his own treatise is rambling and haphazard.

----

the title proclaims: "the explanation of the verse and the exposition of how it is correlated with the previous verse"

and says:

this verse establishes four issues:

1. prayer and sacrifice have both inter-relation with this grant (aTa), as it is described by the conditional 'faa' ("so then")

2. that the verse has a command and accepting those commands has a general implication individually and specific implication together, and that is in Hajj.

3. that there is a special inter-relation (rabT) between prayer and sacrifice.

4. and we are specially blessed by this gift (aTiyyah); that is the command of prayer and sacrifice together.​

=====
do you see what i see?

if the title says that he will demonstrate inter-link between THIS verse and the previous one, you expect it as stated. however, he is talking of how the elements in the SAME ayah are inter-related. even the most skeptical of commentators cannot deny, and the very meaning of the aayat is that it is self-contained. there HAS to be correlation within the ayah at least!

as i said, in itself, these points are not to be disputed. but the problem is when he begins to explain this, he arbitrarily chooses words, themes and concepts and goes full blast. that is, coherence for you.

----
explaining the first two points together, he says:

the premiss has no basis (i.e. not based on some axiom or rule). it is purely arbitrary. farahi states this premise that "grant of kawthar" is a good news given to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and muslims, and follows it (because of the faa for ta'aqib) by the twin commands of 'prayer and sacrifice'.

again arbitrarily he decides

"this follow-up commands prove that there is a relation between the former and the latter. i.e., the grant (giving of kawthar) and command (prayer and sacrifice). and if we reflect upon the order of the statements lead to, some aspects of correlation become apparent to us by the Guidance of Allah. and we will mention them, praise be to Allah.​

and he mentions two verses that he claims are proof of his argument.

---
i have said 'arbitrarily' above. this is because, if one states the framework to be 'quran-explaining-quran' there should be some rule that should first establish: "every good news is followed by a command (or twin commands)" or "usually, a good news is followed by a command". the

otherwise, it is an arbitrary statement - not connected to anything (no rabt with anything). in itself, it is fine. you make a statement and then prove it - but you cannot claim that the arbitrary statement establishes connectivity with everything else from beginning to end, UNLESS it fulfills the stated axiom.

the overarching axiom of this work is to establish connectivity from first to last. and should be repeatedly demonstrable.

one small example of farahi's excess [pun intended] in tafsir of surah al-kawthar:

he disputes the well-known position that surah al-kawthar is makki surah. imam ibn jarir al-Tabari mentioned ONE report in his tafsir of surah al-kawthar, that says the surah was revealed at the time of hudaybiyyah. for perspective, that is ONE report among approximately 101 reports (overall; including reports on reason for revelation, meaning of kawthar etc.)

remember that farahi was rather dismissive of tabari's tafsir in the preface and called it mostly weak reports? one would think that farahi is as fanatical about "sahih reports only" as say, an albani.

imam suyuti in his durr al-manthur mentioned this ONE report among 63 reports in durr al-manthur : see v15 p705:

in his lubab al-nuqul, he mentions that this is an extremely unusual report: (gharabatun shadidah).

-----
now, the hadith that can be deduced to be or explicitly indicate that the surah is makkiyah and revealed before hijrah. even though a hadith of muslim (from hazrat anas ibn malik) implies that it could have been in madinah, bayhaqi says that the word does not contradict the well-known opinion that it is a makki surah. see durr manthur, v15 p697:

====
but farahi is not convinced. if it were only a different opinion, it would be okay. but farahi builds an edifice on top of this frail 'fact'. farahi, p.533:

====
farahi rejects suyuti's classing it as an unusual report on the basis that he didn't describe why and then farahi states from his own mind the reasons why suyuti "might" have considered it unusual and refutes it himself.

all of this for his narrative that the "giving of kawthar" means the fat'h of makkah.

and many of his contentions FOR the opinion that it was at hudaybiyyah, can be used for the opposite position as well. because, in his rationalisation (answering hypothetical objections) plays fast and loose with definitions. so why shouldn't others do too?

i read all of farahi's tafsir of surah kawthar. for his famed 'connectivity' prowess which later admirer pay homage, he didn't even mention zarkashi's example of how well there is connection between this and the previous surah. (that is ma'uun).

====
zarkashi, in burhan p.38:

among the subtleties of surah al-kawthar is its juxtaposition with the previous surah.

because in the previous surah, Allah ta'ala has described four attributes of hypocrites: miserliness (bukhl), omitting prayer, show-off, and avoiding zakat; and here in this surah, he mentions the juxtaposition:

bukhl, miserliness: is (refuted) by "indeed we have given you kawthar", that is abundance.

omitting prayer is juxtaposed by: "then, pray", that is, be steadfast upon and always pray.

show-off (riya'a) is juxtaposed by: "for your Lord Almighty (Rabb)", that is, for His Pleasure, not to please humans.

and refusal to share articles of common use (ma'un) is juxtaposed with "sacrifice". that is, Allah Willed that the meat of sacrificed animals is to be shared and given in charity (to the poor).

one should read his tafsir of surah al-kawthar, to see the utter incoherence of farahi and resort to "use your imagination" when he has no evidence. this one may require a separate thread, but i wanted to show just one difference between the rigorousness of previous scholars (like zarkashi for example) and the hotch-potch, jump from branch-to-branch in a haphazard fashion of later claimants.

ironically, farahi's style incredibly incoherent. he fixates on an idea and to prove his point, he brings all sorts of "proofs" ONLY to prove that point. once he thinks he has made his points, he moves on. and goes on a second point, in isolation and disconnected with his previous point, and even this new proof contradicts, his own assertions in previous points.

he also tries to force his opinion down your throat and pretend that it is irrefutable proof. and spawns threads, much like the 'association' word game.

more for irony to weep: for the so-called "coherence", and 'rabt' interlinked phenomenon that farahi is a champion, he simply starts a thread from nowhere, (i.e. without any seeming connection in the argument) arbitrarily and just goes on showing the coherence, according to farahi!

agreed all of these are allegations up to this point. in sha'Allah i will present illustration in a separate post.

Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes, “In this age, Allama Hameed Uddin Farahi is the most outstanding personality as far as Qur’anic Studies are concerned. He not only occupies a distinguished position among the scholars of recent times, but, in fact, has discovered some new principles for the interpretation of the Qur’an. The foremost among them is his philosophy of coherence in the Qur’an.”​

even though, scholars have been writing on it and explaining it for ages, and farahi himself draws from these works - he is billed as the originator.

Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani writes, “… the revivalist movement launched by Shah Wali Ullah [in the eighteenth century], in recent years has drawn inspiration from “Tafseer Nizaam-ul-Qur’an” the work of a distinguished scholar, Maulana Hameed Uddin Farahi. Among other features of this commentary (ie relationship between the Qur’an and the Bible, and various literary discussions), its salient feature is the unprecedented attempt in it to bring out the coherence between the verses. It is this coherence which sometimes provides enough evidence that the Qur’an is a Divine Book.” [4]​

perhaps farahi is the only person in the latter times, who took this route, and in sha'Allah, we will examine the quality of the work. but first we have to dispel the propaganda and unqualified claims, repeated by his followers and those who cite them, in books, journals, speeches that it is mentioned as a self-evident truth.

much like RTs of today.

=====
mustansir mir, in his book "coherence in the qur'an", p.30-31 says:

​

in the above, the author makes libelous accusation that imam razi was not able to give a satisfactory explanation. whereas even suyuti acknowledged that he was convincing, and farahi cited it.

---
mir, makes a further egregious slander:

​

this is the strawman. the very premise that certain scholars denied existence of nazm is false. this is because of farahi's unscholarly and dishonest citation of ibn abd al-salam's statement; which was (properly) cited first by zarkashi, and copied by suyuti (but farahi snipped it and distorted it). we have shown that they said: "such a nazm exists, but cannot be found in EVERY ayah from beginning to end."

i read a significant portion of mustansir mir's book, and i was puzzled at how the author makes decent arguments in the first chapter: "Nazm in the Qur'an: A Brief History" and recounts facts (warning: i haven't cross checked any of them, but the names and books he mentioned are familiar), though he omits many of them. but still, he acknowledges the history of this science.

when he goes to the second chapter, "nazm according to farahi-islahi", he suffers amnesia. he says:

​

i.e. ibn taymiyyah and zarkashi "do not raise the issue of nazm at all". even though, the author has even mentioned the chapter number (i.e. the second chapter) in zarkashi's "burhan". looks like he did not read that chapter, else he would have noticed one of the most beautiful examples of nazm that a common person can understand (see my next post, in sha'Allah. just to avoid clutter or becoming 'farahi').

see p17 of mustansir's coherence. even though, the author repeats the lie, the misleading statement of farahi attributing to imam ibn abd al-salam and if he has really read zarkashi's chapter, he has not properly understood it (except bits and pieces quoted by farahi).

looks like every one of farahi's admirers is plagued with incomplete reading of books and utter incoherence; and grandstanding based on third party opinions.

the issue is that yes, there is correlation in the qur'an and an aspect of being interconnected. but to assume that the entire qur'an from al-Hamd to al-naas is one word and entirely connected from beginning to end is something towering scholars did not find plausible. besides, there is no need for it.

shaykh ibn al-arabi held this view as quoted by farahi, citing zarkashi:

ibn al-arabi in siraj al-muridin has said: "the verses of the qur'an are entirely correlated, and interconnected" to the point that all of it is one word (i.e. one piece) and congruous in meaning (systematically arranged) and in a well-ordered structure; this is a great science and only one scholar has attempted to take this challenge and he showed the interlinked and correlation in one surah, i.e. surah baqarah.

thereafter, Allah Glorified and Exalted is He - has opened (this science) to us; but we do not find anyone interested in bearing this, and we saw that people are lackadaisical in this matter, so we closed it and kept it between ourselves and Allah ta'ala and submitted it to Him.​

---
zarkashi says that it was also the view of zamlakani (kamaluddin muhammad ibn abd al-wahid al-zamlakani al-shafiyi, d.727 AH):

see burhan, p39:

... rather, if one reflects, it will be apparent that the whole qur'an is one continuous statement.​

=====
the point is not whether such a nazm exists. the point is how qualified and proficient should one be in identifying this interrelation.

if many of the early scholars recognised that hte task was steep and did not go on that path, would you believe that someone in recent times could do that, particularly when he is neither in league of those towering scholars, nor is he holding fast to their methods?

remember, farahi wants to do it in his own method, not attempted by anyone else.

in al burhan, imam zarkashi gives a more fuller quote, p.37: (the trailing portion not cited in itqan is in different colour)

shaykh izzuddin ibn abd al-salam has said:

the knowledge of correlation and inter-connection (between verses) is a good science (ilmun Hasan); however, the condition is that a good correlation is found in speech, and that it occurs in a holistic manner and is soundly correlated from the beginning to the end.

but, if it occurs in different issues, reasons, circumstances, events (asbab), it is not possible to have a correlation.

whoever tries to find a correlation in such disparate issues, only attempts a contrived correlation in verses where he can find only a very faint connection (or: it will be a weak correlation). even hadith with fair chains are better than such artificial correlations, because the qur'an was sent down in twenty plus years concerning various commands and rulings (aHkam) and legislated for various reasons; and when such is the case, it is not possible to have a correlation (in every one of them); because it would not be proper to (always) find correlations in the dispensations of the Creator and His commands to His creation; and presume that everything is correlated and connected, even though the reasons and dependencies are different.

similar to the dispensation (or issuing orders) or muftis, or the dispensation of humans in their own selves concerning various affairs, whether similar or different issues, or opposing matters.

one cannot go finding correlation in all these issues, along with the fact that they are all inherently differing matters, in different situations (times).​

"The Holy Quran came down piecemeal over a period of more than two decades, with different commandments issued for a variety of purposes. A book revealed in this fashion does not afford any correspondence in its components"​

We have seen that on the question of Quranic nazm there exist two schools both of which have supporters. I acknowledge the former view and adhere to it. Through aforementioned facts, I intend to highlight two important points.

First, the earlier scholars did not altogether neglect the question of Quranic nazm. Rather, a group has discussed the issue carefully.Second, discovering nazm in the Holy Quran is a difficult task which has scarcely been attempted. It is a treasure trove of which little has been discovered thus far.

​

=============

what do you make of this? what does any unsuspecting reading think?

that shaykh ibn abd al-salam said: a book that was revealed in 20+ years cannot have coherence. and he belonged to a group of scholars who believed that there cannot be nazm in the qur'an and ruled out such a possibility.

also, the translation above is not entirely close to the tone of the author (perhaps it is translated from urdu of islahi, so the blame should be on ameen islahi). below is my attempt:

shaykh izzuddin ibn abd al-salam said:

"indeed, the qur'an came down in twenty plus years, and concering various commands that were legislated for various reasons/situations. and whatever has come down (verses) in such a manner does not afford correlation with each other."​

these are two different schools of thought (madh'hab) among scholars, and each of them has their supporters. i prefer the first one, and that is my position. i have cited these to describe two issues:

first: this is not an issue on which (previous) scholars have remained silent;second: this is a heavy burden (`ib-un thaqil) and none has stood up (to lift it) except few; and a hidden treasure from which very little has been extracted.​

====

here is what shaykh izzuddin ibn abd al-Salam is reported in al-itqan of suyuti thus; see category #62: on the connection and inter-relation (munasabah) of verses and chapters with one another.

shaykh izzuddin ibn abd al-salam said:

the knowledge of correlation and inter-connection (between verses) is a good science (ilmun Hasan); however, the condition is that a good correlation is found in speech, and that it occurs in a holistic manner and is soundly correlated from the beginning to the end.

but, if it occurs in different issues, reasons, circumstances, events (asbab), it is not possible to have a correlation.

whoever tries to find a correlation in such disparate issues, only attempts a contrived correlation in verses where he can find only a very faint connection (or: it will be a weak correlation). even hadith with fair chains are better than such artificial correlations, because the qur'an was sent down in twenty plus years concerning various commands and rulings (aHkam) and legislated for various reasons; and when such is the case, it is not possible to have a correlation (in every one of them).​

---
abu nibras sent me the link privately, but i hadn't seen it. and it is good that the translation of the muqaddimah is available, and we can use it for our critique; and we won't be accused of mistranslation.

---
anyone who reads this muqaddimah can see the incoherence in farahi's introduction - and of course bad citations and snipped quotes to suit his purpose, as is the habit of heretics.

He was a cousin of the famous theologian and historian Shibli Nomani, from whom he learnt Arabic. He was taught Persian from Maulvi Mehdi Husain of Chitara (Azamgarh). He traveled to Lahore to study Arabic literature from Maulana Faizul Hasan Saharaupuri, who was considered a master in this field. At the age of twenty-one, he was admitted to the Aligarh Muslim University to study the modern disciplines of knowledge. He was recommended by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University. Sir Syed wrote that he was sending someone who knew more Arabic and Persian than the professors of the college.

---

That also explains his supercilious attitude towards transmitted wisdom and his desire to reconcile the Qur'an with the extant (corrupted) text of Bible, which he deferentially terms - "books of previous Prophets".

It is clear that he was a distinguished member of that accursed circle of hypocrites and modernists whom the British had commissioned to work on destroying Islam from within.

"and we learned (or we know) that the soul/spirit is a high category/class among the slaves of Allah, then it becomes clear to us that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to obey the sanctified spirit (ruH al-muqaddas) and the qur'an explicity says that the sanctified spirit (ruH al-muqaddas) is placed (makeen) and is to be obeyed (muta'a) near the Lord Almighty (Rabb) and inevitably, (other) angels are under its command."
​

Premise#2: Everything in creation (it is not clear if he considers angels as part of this creation) is subservient to human beings.

"and we know that everything in this creation is subservient to humans;"​

Conclusion#1: The Holy Spirit is obeyed.

"and this is a sign that in it is that the sanctified spirit is obeyed."​

Comment: by whom? the angels alone or even the human beings? And if the human beings too then does this include the Prophets and also the Master of all Prophets (Upon him and all of them be peace)?

Conclusion#2: Increase in 'Ubudiyyah will proportionately increase the a'abid's - "share" - in the Holy Spirit

"as much as a human increases in his slavehood (ubudiyah) and cleanses from the smears of the nafs (lower-ego), ALlah ta'ala will increase his share in the sanctified spirit and the obedience of the worlds by the permission of Allah ta'ala."​

Comment: What DOES that mean? It seems he thinks that the Holy Spirit is some kind of a go-between. Is this his personal philosophy of fanaa-fil-ruH-al-quds? It is uncannily similar to this.

To me this rambling sounds more like a desultory farrago of Christian theology with Islamic nomenclature than a tafsir-qur'an-bil-qur'an.

Is it really by a Faraahi or by some Fraunhofer?

Click to expand...

Or that souls keep on uniting with the Holy Spirit to make it larger and larger.

Sounds like the nirvaan stage (Becoming one with the great AATMA) espoused by Buddhists and Jains.

"and we learned (or we know) that the soul/spirit is a high category/class among the slaves of Allah, then it becomes clear to us that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to obey the sanctified spirit (ruH al-muqaddas) and the qur'an explicity says that the sanctified spirit (ruH al-muqaddas) is placed (makeen) and is to be obeyed (muta'a) near the Lord Almighty (Rabb) and inevitably, (other) angels are under its command."
​

Premise#2: Everything in creation (it is not clear if he considers angels as part of this creation) is subservient to human beings.

"and we know that everything in this creation is subservient to humans;"​

Conclusion#1: The Holy Spirit is obeyed.

"and this is a sign that in it is that the sanctified spirit is obeyed."​

Comment: by whom? the angels alone or even the human beings? And if the human beings too then does this include the Prophets and also the Master of all Prophets (Upon him and all of them be peace)?

Conclusion#2: Increase in 'Ubudiyyah will proportionately increase the a'abid's - "share" - in the Holy Spirit

"as much as a human increases in his slavehood (ubudiyah) and cleanses from the smears of the nafs (lower-ego), ALlah ta'ala will increase his share in the sanctified spirit and the obedience of the worlds by the permission of Allah ta'ala."​

Comment: What DOES that mean? It seems he thinks that the Holy Spirit is some kind of a go-between. Is this his personal philosophy of fanaa-fil-ruH-al-quds? It is uncannily similar to this.

To me this rambling sounds more like a desultory farrago of Christian theology with Islamic nomenclature than a tafsir-qur'an-bil-qur'an.

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name;
Thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done
in earth, as it is in heaven:
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us;
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil:

that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to prostrate to Adam (alayhi's salam) after giving him a soul.

and we learned (or we know) that the soul/spirit is a high category/class among the slaves of Allah, then it becomes clear to us that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to obey the sanctified spirit (ruH al-muqaddas) and the qur'an explicity says that the sanctified spirit (ruH al-muqaddas) is placed (makeen) and is to be obeyed (muta'a) near the Lord Almighty (Rabb) and inevitably, (other) angels are under its command.

and we know that everything in this creation is subservient to humans; and this is a sign that in it is that the sanctified spirit is obeyed. as much as a human increases in his slavehood (ubudiyah) and cleanses from the smears of the nafs (lower-ego), ALlah ta'ala will increase his share in the sanctified spirit and the obedience of the worlds by the permission of Allah ta'ala.

along with this He has negated the own will (of the human) and He becomes the perfect human, pleased (with Allah) and (Allah) pleased with him, as has been narrated about honourable slaves (of Allah).

in the sahih report it is mentioned: "..until i become his hearing and sight..." i.e. the worlds obey him and he obeys his Rabb, and this obedience (to the slave) is actually obedience of the Rabb as has been said in the verse: "if you indeed love Allah, then obey me, Allah will Love you". and he doesn't become god or His partner. rather, an ideal slave who has attained perfection, like the word or pen or book for the king - whoever obeys therein actually obeys the king...​

====
rambling roared on the road, turned left and hit coherence which was walking on the sidewalk not obstructing anyone...coherence died on the spot. and it is this prose akram nadawi and nouman khan are mesmerised about.

if you have noticed, farahi in spite of his rambling acknowledged the position of ahl al-sunnah. that when we attribute karamah and taSarruf to awliya Allah, with Allah's permission, we are not committing shirk. we are saying that this power was granted to them by Allah, and their actions are only by the permission of Allah.

one more point: faraHi uses the term "ruh al-muqaddas" while the qur'an says: "ruH al-qudus".*

[update: thanks to unbeknown] and in one short clip of akram nadwi he was saying: 'no one should be obeyed except Allah'...

Finally it is also not true, as Lumbard claims, that rūḥ al-qudus “is actually glossed by several commentators, among them al-Zamakhshārī and al-Rāzī as 'al-rūḥ al-muqaddas', or “The Holy Spirit.”” Such a disingenuous and misleading response on Lumbard’s part illustrates the problem with the Study Quran. First, the phrase The Holy Spirit has invariably Christian connotations for most English readers, but how can the same readers know that the phrase al-ruh al-muqaddas has no such connotation for the imams being quoted?

perhaps, i didn't understand it properly. perhaps, i have closed my mind to farahi. i invite anyone who has understood it to please explain it here.

---
one more thing about farahi's seven/eight conundrum.

1. see first, farahi agrees that the verses of surat al-fatihah are seven.

2. and he tries to prove the validity of seven spirits as mentioned in the bible. i.e. seven special angels carrying the throne.

3. and so, he says the 7 verses of the surah fatihah are seven levels.

4. and on top of them is the eighth 'crown'. i.e. the basmalah.

===
so which madh'hab does he follow? imam shafiyi's who said 7 verses from bismillah to wala'dDalleen? or imam azam and others who said from alHamd to wala'dDalleen?

because if it is the former, the verses are seven (and you don't get your crown); and if it is the latter, the verses are STILL seven and you don't get the crown. because the basmalah is the part of surah naml; and the crown belongs to all chapters without any special distinction in surah fatihah. (as basmalah is written for barakah not as a part of the surah).

i began reading tafsir of surah fatihah. the first nine pages (p.84 to 95) are his own opinions and estimations. utterly incoherent.

i will not just throw a statement without any validation like akram nadawi. as he said: "imam razi is good in raising objections even if he doesn't answer them well" and accuses him of "philosophical thoughts" [not verbatim, quote from memory].

farahi is absolutely off the charts. let me illustrate.

you have seen previously, the high horse on which farahi arrives:

1. "tabari has mostly weak reports and many are not even marfu'at".
2. and his own claim of "only saHiH reports". [he actually compares himself to bukhari in the intro for collating sahih only]
3. that will stick to "tafsir of qur'an by qur'an as the fundamental rule"​

keep those 3 in mind above and notice the consistency (or lack of it) and coherence...

on p94 he says:

he says he will not make wild correlations concerning numbers or their indications, implications. while acknowledging that the surah fatihah has seven verses and numbers have a great significance in holy books. [confused? read on.]

he forswore that he will not correlate numbers - by wild approximations (tawahhumat).

yet in the next para he quotes the bible: p94:

"...we find in the book of prophets, the details. that is because the prophet dhu'l kifl (ezekiel) alayhi's salam and yahya (john) alayhi's salam saw seven spirits under the throne and four angels praising and gloryfing the Lord Almighty. and we shall thus explain the report."​

====
in the bible: John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne;

------
i thought he might be just mentioning it to refute it, but he actually tries to reconcile this with qur'an by a stretch:

"thus we learn that the higher (angels) carrying (the throne) are the seven spirits; and around the throne are angels bare-feet by it."​

oh. ok...mm. but he said he won't correlate and make wild approximations didn't he?

yet, the carriers of the throne (Hamalat al-arsh) are said to be eight in the qur'an "on that day". and the implication of hadith (as cited by ibn kathir) is that they are four now and will be eight on that day.

but farahi draws from the bible and makes them seven to match with the seven aayat of surah fatiHah. (p97-98):

"and we learned in the qur'an that the ruH (Spirit) is special among angels, just as humans are among all living beings (animals/haywaan).

[after he cites two verses of the qur'an, he says]: "and the angels descend with the Spirit in that night". notice: how the Spirit is given precedence when standing is mentioned, and given precedence on other angels when their descent was mentioned. this is to make it known that the rank of the Spirit is higher and closer. and then the word: "carriers of the throne" hamalat al-arsh came and that covers both categories - however, the difference between those who carry the arsh and the ones around it is mentioned in the verses: "and those who carry the arsh and those around it" and He has said: "and you will see angels barefeet around the Throne".

thus we learn that the high angels, the carriers (of the throne) - THEY are the SEVEN SPIRITS. and around the throne are other angels barefeet.​

----
did you notice how he arbitrarily jumped from ruH in surah qadr to equate with the seven spirits of the biblical description? and forcibly went against mufassirin who cited that the carriers of the throne are four now, and will be eight on the day of judgement.

see ibn kathir:

in fact, if he insisted on "tafsir al-qur'an bi'l qur'an" he should have stuck to eight - as is explicitly mentioned in the aayah.

-------
this is the coherence that some people are raving about.

he jumps from verses one after the other and then reports, hadith, biblical narrations in succession - and strings the collage so well, that an ignorant person will certainly be awed at the 'correlation'. whereas a student like myself who is shackled by the twin irons of logic and context will be speechless at the magic show. behold:

will attempt a trans for non-arabic readers later in sha'Allah. and if there is one, please someone post it and spare me the trouble.

======
and ends the discussion, with this:

(pardon me if it is not right. please correct it. i cannot wrap my head around this "plain tafsir" farahi promised):

when it is clear to you that the paradise is description of attainment (wuSul) and joining together of pure souls (or holy spirits, or good spirits) and illumination of the Lord Sustainer according to the perfection and capability of the perfect human, who envelopes the seven spirits and the eighth is the level of perishing (faniyah) under the illumination of His Greatest Name, then you would know that the verses of this surah are the seven milestones and levels, and on top of them - similar to a blessed crown - is the aayat: "bismillahi'r rahmani'r raHim" and that is the eighth level and upon it are the illuminations from the Light of Allah ta'ala....​

-----
in other words, just take my word and chuck out all the rest. because i tell you so - see i promised you in the introduction? that is it. close your eyes and become a cult member.

farahi is mad.

Attached Files:

ironically, the man's own prefaces and introductions are so incoherent, how can he explain the coherence of the qur'an? indeed, if he manages to do it, it is the mujiz/miracle of the qur'an that even an incoherent person can do this.

---
he does quote the books i mentioned below - and when i did that below, i hadn't seen this. Allah is my witness.

for example, he derides our ulama and their opinions and sticks out his nose and dismisses tabari's tafsir saying most of it is weak reports and ta'wils.

yet in a few pages he is eager to take from jews and christians putting their dates as more accurate than our own scholars!

yet in his second introduction he says, the order of sources he draws from, are thus:

#1: that which scholars of the ummah accept from ahadith
#2: those things which our ummah agrees upon concerning nations
#3: that which remains preserved from the books sent down to previous prophets.

let us say, he meant: "only the sahih hadith" in the first category. (this, after the qur'an-by-qur'an fundamental rule). still, according to his methodology - he will accept torah and bible as secondary sources.

but ta'wil of ulama in the light of fiqh and hadith and language? perish forbid - that is to be looked down upon. p15 of the book:

so farahi's aql is to be relied upon. and previous ulama such as imam razi's rejected. that is the implication - though he does not say it explicitly.

even though it is practically impossible for ANYONE to do tafsir of the qur'an BY the qur'an UNLESS they have acquired the associated sciences, developed, explained and elucidated by imams of this ummah.

so the claim of "pure tafsir of qur'an by qur'an" is impossible and the claim is a fallacious one. assume that you know that verse-xyz explains verse-pqr of the qur'an. unless one has learned what verse-xyz entails from various perspectives - balaghah, badiy, bayan etc. and its rulings - the hadith, aathar and the fiqh of that aayah - it is impossible to use it to explain verse-pqr. UNLESS that is done by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam!

because we can only approximate the meanings and say, for example: xyz has 10 implications. and one of the meanings is descriptive of pqr. therefore xyz explains pqr.

it is a fallacy to say that "i can explain pqr by xyz without resorting to any other source. particularly someone who comes after 1300 years. because many of these mufradat and gharayib are known ONLY by secondary and tertiary sources.

farahi, p15:

===
so this man will teach us the coherence of the qur'an. interesting. let's keep reading.

====

i think this is the problem with people who think they are smarter than everyone else. he uses authorities such as suyuti and zarkashi as evidence for his argument, yet he leaves everyone else to strike a new path in the woods.